Part of the explanation is the definition of the word "evolution." Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.
I have not clicked the link. I am not going to go into details of something without first looking at the basics. The basics of everything is cause and effect, as upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even so-called mutations are cause and effect brought into being.
Cause and effect acts like programming. Programming means a programmer. Because of the size and complexity of the universe (wherein we see nothing but cause and effect programming), the Programmer of the universe must be very great. Such a Programmer matches our definition of the word "God." In fact, our definition of "God" does not do Him nearly enough justice to honor Him correctly and properly. He is far greater than our definition of Him says or implies.
So in essence what you're saying is that everything in the universe has been programmed (by your God) to allow it to change and become something else ie evolve. I'm still missing the part where mathematics proves that evolution isn't possible.
Not exactly. Everything in the universe is programmed by God over all.
The definition of "evolve" includes various ideas. Mutations don't happen because of the programming. The only reason mutations appear to happen is because we don't understand the programming.
Roll the dice, toss the coin, look at the odds. The odds against non-programmed change in life are so extremely great that such change is impossible.
The underlying message in all your posts is that humans don't contain the necessary intelligence to be able to explain the workings, what you call "God's machines", of the universe, yet you make references to human studies to back up your statements eg. Newton's third law. If everything is cause and effect, then what cause effected your God into existence? And if something effected your God into existence, isn't it possible that this same cause effected the universe into existence? Alternatively, if your God simply existed from the start, then isn't it also possible that the universe always existed from the start?
Everything that we know in the universe comes about through cause and effect. Science has for years been looking for something that proves pure random (which is the opposite of cause and effect). They have not been able to find anything that is pure random. So they have twisted their theories into "odds-things," just so that they can say that probability strongly suggests that pure random is true, and therefore it is true. However, they don't quite say it directly, yet. They simply imply that their odds are the thing that is the reality when it is not.
Part of the point in all this is that science says that it is looking for the truth. Everything in nature that we understand points towards God via cause and effect. So, why is it that science wants to ignore the obvious, and instead try to twist it into something that it is not? Shouldn't the reverse be the thing that they would do? Shouldn't they state right out in the open that cause and effect points towards the existence of God, and that they have been testing it out for decades but haven't been able to find anything to refute it and God's existence? Do they really want truth and fact after all? Or are they simply liars?
The universe had a beginning as expressed by entropy and complexity. God made the beginning. In order to begin the universe, God must at least be outside of it in part. We can't even conceive what being outside of the universe must be like, since we are so attached to the universe. So, how in the world are we going to be able to calculate anything about God except if He tells us?